Talk:2007–2011 Belgian political crisis

Belgium High‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Page move

i propose moving this page to the 2007-2010 political crisis or perhaps something like "2007-2010 Belgian ethno-political crisis" because it has gone beyond 2007/8. Something like the 2010 Kyrgz uprising and the consequent link from the Tulip Revolution can fit as a model here. Lihaas (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. There is no concensus whether the Belgian conflict is an ethnic one. The Flemings and the Walloons might belong to ethnic groups but the Brusselers (a tenth of the country's population) is difficult to classify because it shares the language of the Walloons but used to be Flemish at least till the dawn of the 20th century. 93.193.119.106 (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, aside from the language we should be considered one ethnic group considering we have a shared heritage, shared culture, shared religion, ... You don't call the political problems in America a ethnic crisis either. We have two groups with different political views.109.130.187.90 (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False WP:OR claim

Pluto2012 is insisting this article violates WP:OR because this crisis consists out of two crisis. Despite the fact that they involve the same people, arguing about the same thing, in chronologically adjacent periods he claims it is WP:OR to group them. While this is in no way violates any WP:OR guidelines, not in letter and not in spirit.

All the claims made in the article are are verifiable. The WP:OR claim is a result of Talk:Belgium.

There are plenty of sources that group the events. A reliable source published by Taylor & Francis on their website can be found here [1]. Appearing in the Journal Representation. Issue 48. This is a reliable secondary source complying with all the WP:OR requirements.

though he claims "If it is the only one it is not enough because it is rather anecdotical." Even ignoring the fact that "anecdotical" is not a word.

This claim is false. as it was written by an hoogleraar from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/345548 One of the top universities in the country

The events are inherently connected by causality, actors, subject matter and chronologically. Pinfix (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The separate Université catholique de Louvain also published a book "Émulations n°10 : Belgique : sortir de crise(s)" which is advertised here [2] here with the sentence "le premier volume entièrement consacré à la crise politique qu'a traversée l'État belge entre 2007 et 2011." Which translates as "The first issue is entirely devoted to the political crisis that struck the belgian state between 2007 and 2011. The book itself contains several such literal references. Pinfix (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and here is a further selection of secondary and ternary sources. [3] [4] [5][6] [7]

This is in addition to the fact that they are inherently linked by time, actors, subject matter. And supported further by the fact that the original crisis was never resolved, and picked up where they left of after the next elections. There was an armistice but never a truce. It is absolutely fine, more accurate and honest to refer to it as a crisis. It really is as ridiculous as claiming that it is WP:OR by speaking about a soccer match because you use some references that only speak about the first half, and some only speak about the second half. I Have presented references of people on both sides of the linguistic divide which is at the root of the crisis as well as foreign press. Including published books and articles published in respectable journals. This is not WP:OR. For somebody who insists on pretending he has to educate me on wikipedia he shows very little knowledge of WP:OR. Pointing out that dismissing all the evidence that this is not WP:OR as anecdotal and requiring me to always present more evidence shows bad intentions is not a violations of WP:AGF though i'm sure you enjoyed threatening me. It is both by definition of a crisis correct, and reported as such by published respectable sources. Pinfix (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"That's not the way wikipedia works. You have to provide sources that prove scholars or journalists agree there was a crisis from 2007 to 2011"- Pluto2012

In fact -despite that you love pretending you have to teach me how wikipedia works- Instead of refuting any of my arguments. I do not have to prove everybody agrees. I have to prove that the claim is false. And it is not WP:OR the moment it is not *Original* research. Which I did. By providing reliable published sources.

This article has been around since 2010 grouping the events, and well integrated with other articles. without previous WP:OR claims.

also nl:Marc Dhooghe was a frequent academic commentator during the crisis with many published articles in virtually all the newspapers in Flanders. So dismissing his article as anecdotal is quite controversial. He is the President of the Flemish political institute [8]. In addition to being a member of the pavia group [9] It will be hard to argue that it is justified to dismiss his publications as anecdotal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinfix (talk • contribs) 14:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014

The government formation after the elections on 25 May is bound to be as difficult as they have been in 2007 and 2010. It is very likely that it will turn into another formation of many months. The eventual 2011 government formation was very unusual after all, and the disagreements between both sides have not diminished. On the contrary, polls indicate that the smaller voice in the discussion will have grown, while the other side is expected to remain as immovable as ever.

I believe therefore that it would be beneficial to incorporate any 'crisis-talks' about the next government formation in this article, and to rename it to 2007-14 (or -15). Of course this is not something that needs to be done right now, I am merely looking at the future, trying to prevent that this article will make it appear as if 2007-2011 was an isolated case. If we can agree on beforehand, we won't need to be discussing this while events unfold. Sygmoral (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is premature. We're an Encyclopaedia. Not a fortune cookie. A lot has shifted since last time. And there has not been a "crisis" in the last 2 and a half years. the 2007-11 period is a much more contained block. And there are several reasons to assume that it will not take this long. Only if this turns into a crisis do the formation talks even need to be on the english language wikipedia. Otherwise they belong here Belgian federal election, 2014. and more specifically Belgian federal election, 2014#Government formation. Even during the campaign the issues which paralised the political system last time around were not that prominent. There has to be a crisis first. I do not support this move. Especially not at this point.Pinfix (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]